Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Detailed Action
The amendment filed on 12/17/2025 has been entered. The text of the canceled claim 7 should not be presented.
Drawings Objection
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, a/the groove (cited in claims 1, 8, 15, 16, 19 and 20), a/the closed position (cited in claims 1, 8, 14 and 18) and 8), a spread position (cited in claims 1 and 8), the knife blades are in the center of the bar (cited in claims 14 and 18), and the locking mechanisms (cited in claims 16, 17, 20 and 21) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Objection to the Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
(1) In paragraph [0001], line 3, “June 16, 2023” does not agree the Application Data Sheet filed on 03/20/2024.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
1. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
2. Claims 1-6, 14-17, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
(1) In claim 1, line 7, “the handle and blades” has no clear antecedent basis. The phrase should read --the blade handle and the knife blades--.
(2) In claims 16, 17, 20 and 21, the limitation “locking mechanisms to lock the knife blades” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification merely states the claimed function of locking the blades 16 at the present locations (see paragraph [00014], line 5 of the specification). There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the locking. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there are many different ways to effect coupling. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which mechanical structures perform the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejection- 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)
1. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
2. Claims 8, 10-13 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Merkle (U.S. Patent No. 608,337).
Regarding claim 8, Merkle discloses a knife (see Fig.1) comprising:
a handle (C);
a bar (B) attached to the handle (C) at the center of the bar (B, see left column, lines 41-43) and arranged perpendicularly to the handle (C, see Fig.1); and
a plurality of blades (A) connected to the bar (B) and extending away from the handle (C), the blades (B) being substantially equal in length and thickness and being spaced apart from each other or from the center of the bar (B) substantially equally; and
wherein the bar (B) comprises a groove (e.g., the polygon opening b, see Fig.1) extending laterally in the bar (B) to allow the blades (A) to slide laterally along the bar (B) from a closed position where the blades (A) are bunched together to a spread position where the blades (A) are spaced apart from each other of from the center of the bar (B) for use during cutting. Note Merkle teaches the blades can be any desired number (see left column, lines 35-36), and each blade (A) can be received at a desired groove (b) so that the blades (A) are spaced apart or bunched together as intended.
Regarding claim 10, one or more of Merkle’s blades (A) has a non-serrated edge.
Regarding claim 11, Merkle’s blades (A) comprises two blades (A).
Regarding claim 12, Merkle’s blades (A) comprises three blades (A, see left column, lines 35-36).
Regarding claim 13, Merkle’s blades (A) are evenly spaced apart from each other (see Fig.1).
Regarding claim 18, Merkle’s blades (A) are adjustable toward the center of the bar (B) when bunched together.
Regarding claim 19, each of Merkle’s blades (A) is connected to the groove (b) at a base (a) of the blade (A).
Regarding claim 20, Merkle’s knife comprises locking mechanisms (D) to lock the blades (A) at preset locations.
Regarding claim 21, Merkle’s locking mechanisms (D) lock the blades (A) at the present locations in which the blades (A) are spaced apart from each other or from the center of the bar (B) substantially equally.
Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. 103
1. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
2. Claims 1, 3-6 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merkle (U.S. Patent No. 608,337) in view of Mathaus (U.S. Patent No. 2,448,383).
Regarding claim 1, Merkle discloses a bread knife (see Fig.1) comprising:
a single blade handle (C) connected to a plurality of knife blades (A) arranged in parallel with one another, the knife blades (A) being spaced apart from each other by a distance of 2-5 centimeters, wherein the knife blades (A) are positioned to make contact with bread (see left column, lines 9-10) simultaneously when used and to cut through the bread at different locations due to a motion of the blades (A), and wherein the knife blades (A) are connected to the single blade handle (C) through a horizontal bar (B) connected to the blade handle (C) and extending perpendicular to the blade handle (C) and the knife blades (A), the horizontal bar (B) comprising a groove (b) extending laterally in the horizontal bar (B) to allow the knife blades (A) to slide laterally along the bar (B) from a closed position where the knife blades (A) are bunched together to a spread position wherein the knife blades (A) are spaced apart by said distance for use during cutting substantially as claimed except Merkle does not explicitly mention the knife blades (A) is made of metal.
Mathaus shows a knife comprising a plurality of blades (1,2,3) made of metal (see column 2, lines 19-20).
Thus, to modify Merkle by using a well-known and commercially available material such as Mathaus’ metal for Merkle’s blades for its availability and suitability for cutting bread would have been obvious to one skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 3, one or more of Merkle’s knife blades (A) has a non-serrated edge.
Regarding claim 4, Merkle’s knife blades (A) comprises two blades (A).
Regarding claim 5, Merkle’s knife blades (A) comprises three blades (A, see left column, lines 35-36).
Regarding claim 6, Merkle’s knife blades (A) are evenly spaced apart from each other when the knife blades (A) are connected to evenly spaced apart grooves (b).
Regarding claim 14, Merkle’s knife blades (A) are adjustable connected toward the center of the bar (B) when bunched together.
Regarding claim 15, each of Merkle’s blades (A) is connected to the groove (b) at a base (a) of the blade (A).
Regarding claim 16, Merkle’s knife comprises locking mechanisms (D) to lock the knife blades (A) at preset locations.
Regarding claim 17, Merkle’s locking mechanisms (D) lock the blades (A) at the present locations in which the blades (A) are spaced apart from each other by said distance.
3. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merkle (U.S. Patent No. 608,337) in view of Mathaus (U.S. Patent No. 2,338,383) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sizemore, Jr. (U.S. Patent No. 4,472,879, hereinafter “Sizemore”).
Regarding claim 2, Merkle’s bread knife as modified above shows all the claimed limitations except the knife blades (A) each has a non-serrated edge (see Fig.1) rather than a serrated edge.
Sizemore shows a knife comprising a plurality knife blades (24) that can have a non-serrated edge (34, see Fig.4) or a serrated edge (122, see Fig.8).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to further modify Merkle by having the knife blades (A) each equipped with a serrated edge which is useful in sawing type cutting operations as taught by Sizemore (see column 4, lines 32-34).
4. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merkle (U.S. Patent No. 608,337) in view of Sizemore, Jr. (U.S. Patent No. 4,472,879, hereinafter “Sizemore”).
Regarding claim 9, Merkle’s knife as set forth shows all the claimed structure except the blades (A) each has a non-serrated edge (see Fig.1) rather than a serrated edge.
Sizemore shows a knife comprising a plurality knife blades (24) that can have a non-serrated edge (34, see Fig.4) or a serrated edge (122, see Fig.8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Merkle by having the knife blades (A) each equipped with a serrated edge which is useful in sawing type cutting operations as taught by Sizemore (see column 4, lines 32-34).
Prior Art Citation
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent No. 12,427,679 is cited to show a blade (100) having blades (122,124,126) slidable laterally from a closed position (see Fig.1) where the blade (122,124,126) are bunched together to a spread position (see Fig.2) where the blades (122,124,126) are spaced apart for use during cutting.
Remarks
Independent claims 1 and 8 as amended stand rejected as set forth.
Action Made Final
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Point of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HWEI-SIU PAYER whose telephone number is (571)272-4511. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 6:00 AM to 2:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-4502. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/HWEI-SIU C PAYER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724